[DRAFT] Commend Kowani

[The North Polish Union]

Thanks very much for your detailed feedback. I'll go over it in depth and rework the proposal sometime when I have more time. There's a lot to look at there.

[Astrobolt]

Against due to author. I can’t support a proposal written by someone trying to draw an equivalence between the Jan 6th Capitol Insurrection, and protests against Putin (a brutal dictator).

[The North Polish Union]

Against due to author. I can’t support a proposal written by someone trying to draw an equivalence between the Jan 6th Capitol Insurrection, and protests against Putin (a brutal dictator).

I will quote the poste here for readers to understand with relevant portions bolded. The context is a discussion of whether censorship of posts perceived as misinformation should be policy on NS. My position is that what is and is not 'misinformation' will be disagreed on by the worldwide community and a policy of broad censorship rather than debate is not beneficial to community health.

I understand this is a very difficult situation, but I do have legitimate concerns about the site being a target of bad actors such as the promoters of dangerous conspiracy theories that justify racism, xenophobia (unrelated to immigration policy) and violence — there is no excuse in my opinion for anyone to justify such things in a democratic society. The developments in TRR’s RMB are concerning to me.

I have stated COVID-5G as an example, due to the conspiracy theory leading to a wave of arson attacks on critical infrastructure. Nothing in my post suggest suppressing the criticism of the established order, especially with the Pandora Papers which exposed misconduct in taxation by many world leaders. I am myself very critical of the Brexit, and China’s attitude to Hong Kong, but I know there are ways to counter that without justifying racism, xenophobia or violence.

At the end of the day, it will take more than me to figure out how exactly we are going to deal with the promotion of dangerous conspiracy theories that have resulted in racism, xenophobia (unrelated to immigration policy) and violence. It is not an easy task.

The problem I have is that someone has to decide what groups are promoting racism, xenophobia, and violence. Using the examples I mentioned in my previous post, both the Occupy Wall Street and Euromaidan protesters were accused of being white supremacists/neo-Nazis and the Arab Spring protesters were accused of being jihadis/Muslim fundamentalists; in several cases these accusations were made by powerful state actors. As I said earlier, in cases when concessions are made to avoid 'conspiracy' they will tend to favor the established order, but that is not every established order since governments and other powerful actors are often in conflict; criticism of China's Hong Kong policy may be acceptable (and even encouraged) here but it is certainly not in China and NS has little (or no) presence in mainland China.

In the protests in Iran in late 2019, Ayatollah Khamenei blamed the protests on a conspiracy of "all of the centres of villainy around the world that oppose us." While most of us would disagree with his assessment (which is itself likely rooted in anti-Semitism), a hypothetical Iranian NS poster could have come and requested that expression of support for the protests be prohibited as "dangerous conspiracy theories that have resulted in [...] violence". Both sides may have a case here, and is it better if the Western consensus prevails and 'support for violence' is permitted, or that said such 'violence' is banned and critical discussion of the Iranian state is stifled? Likewise, should NS have platformed 'neo-Nazis' by allowing posters to voice support for Euromaidan, or should they have cut off that discussion and avoided such 'neo-Naziism' but also avoided discussion of the Yanukovych government's corruption?

Having an 'outside perspective' from a non-English-speaking country it seems to me that much of the controversies of the past several years stem from alarm in the English-speaking world that the use of and actions encouraged by the internet that has been occurring for many years outside the West has finally caught up to them. Where in the past governments were criticized by the West for restricting their internet during national crises or otherwise sanitizing it, now there are calls to do exactly that at home to prevent violence, which has been the claim for nearly every country that previously restricted internet content. For me personally, not being American or Russian, it is difficult to see an objective difference between the US protest on 6th January and the Russian protests that began roughly 3 weeks later; both are accused of being rioters and far-right-wing conspiracy-theorists by their governments and both wanted the resignation of the de jure leader and a return to what they believe is a 'more democratic' form of government. These are simply the facts, anyone is free to disagree with the true motivations of either group, but it is certain that even on this site support for the different protests is viewed very differently. Ought discussion of one necessarily be regulated more strictly than the other to void supporting violence?

Obviously in this case the discussion is more philosophical than concrete. As was mentioned on the first page, none of TRR's RMB posts were actually reported. No matter the rules, posts need to actually be reported to be acted on. However, I would say that the existing rules prohibiting the encouragement of violence are more than adequate. My understanding is that encouraging NS users to burn down 5G towers would be prohibited currently but if the crazies that think 5G is a conspiracy are shut out of the site simply because some of them may commit IRL crimes, then critics of Vladimir Putin would need to be shut out as well.

[v] likes it hidden. She doesn't want to put a [report] button visible on every post. I think the two-click system is here for a while. If the Comms Dev Mgr wants to raise it, fine by me.

One problem I have is that the GHR system is more un-intuitive than it needs to be. Is there a middle ground between putting a report button on each post and hiding the GHR link at the bottom of the FAQ page?

I am still working on the redraft based on the feedback that Thousand Branches provided. I am competing in my voivodeship's chess championship this weekend so it will probably not happen for several days.

[Apatosaurus]

-snip-

Yeah doubling down on an (in my opinion) very bad take won't do you any favours. However, I don't think a single bad take is enough for ADTA status.

As to the actual proposal: I'm not yet convinced the nominee is commendable, but here is some feedback.

PLEASED by Kowani’s services to League of Constructed Languages (LoCL) and its successor, Council of Constructed Languages (CoCL); and particularly

Remove the "and particularly"

GRATEFUL that Kowani (among others) aided many of its fellow nations in the relocation from LoCL to CoCL after the former region’s security was compromised in 2019 that CoCL managed to successfully integrate refugees from Council for Constructed Languages under the leadership of a group of nations that included Kowani;

This is an incredibly clunky mega-clause. Replace "that" between "2019" and "CoCL" with a semicolon. "a group of nations that included Kowani" also seems like... an interesting choice of language as it doesn't give much of the commendable vibe. Try something like "Kowani and several other figures in CoCL" or otherwise place more emphasis on that Kowani was involved than that Kowani was just one of a group involved.

ASTOUNDED at the beauty and high degree of lexical development found in the Kowani language, a linguistically sophisticated Romance language unique to the nation;

Like what?

PLEASED that in spite of such a potential language barrier, Kowani has taken an important role in international affairs even outside its region;

What is this clause... roleplay? I don't particularly understand this or why it is commendable.

particularly its founding of the Romance Language Foundation are exemplary of Kowani’s commitment to furthering international diplomacy;

Same as above...

ACKNOWLEDGING that Kowani is a significant contributor to those meeting-places where world leaders come together to discuss and debate hypothetical events outside the multiverse, and has been cited as notable for its research- and data-driven contributions to that institution;

"That institution" is strange wording and you should change it.

APPLAUDING Kowani’s further efforts to provide high-quality information to such discussions by acting in many ways as a de facto news service/aggregator, a service which enables other nations to keep well-informed;

I'm not an NSG'er so I can't really speak to this, but this really needs fleshing out as to why it's commendable and/or more detail.

You should also get rid of the all caps spelling of the first word in every clause.

Good luck :>

[CoraSpia]

Against due to author. I can’t support a proposal written by someone trying to draw an equivalence between the Jan 6th Capitol Insurrection, and protests against Putin (a brutal dictator).

FFS, vote on the proposal rather than moralising. I know that's 75 % of what gameplay is these days but I'm sure you can vote based on proposal text if you put your mind to it.

[Great Algerstonia]

Against due to author. I can’t support a proposal written by someone trying to draw an equivalence between the Jan 6th Capitol Insurrection, and protests against Putin (a brutal dictator).

How is any of that relevant to what is written in the proposal?

[WayNeacTia]

Against due to author. I can’t support a proposal written by someone trying to draw an equivalence between the Jan 6th Capitol Insurrection, and protests against Putin (a brutal dictator).

How is any of that relevant to what is written in the proposal?

It's not, but people vote against shit because of the author all the time.

[Great Algerstonia]

How is any of that relevant to what is written in the proposal?

It's not, but people vote against shit because of the author all the time.

Which is something I unconditionally oppose. The author should absolutely never be a consideration in any WA proposal. Voting for or against on an author-- with exceptions for gameplay rivalries and individual roleplay rivalries-- is not good.

[Comfed]

It's not, but people vote against shit because of the author all the time.

Which is something I unconditionally oppose. The author should absolutely never be a consideration in any WA proposal. Voting for or against on an author-- with exceptions for gameplay rivalries and individual roleplay rivalries-- is not good.

Why not?

[WayNeacTia]

It's not, but people vote against shit because of the author all the time.

Which is something I unconditionally oppose. The author should absolutely never be a consideration in any WA proposal. Voting for or against on an author-- with exceptions for gameplay rivalries and individual roleplay rivalries-- is not good.

Sure it is. When someone decides they want to author something, they are just as much a target as the nominee, and thus any dirt people possess on said author is going to come out.

[Great Algerstonia]

Which is something I unconditionally oppose. The author should absolutely never be a consideration in any WA proposal. Voting for or against on an author-- with exceptions for gameplay rivalries and individual roleplay rivalries-- is not good.

Why not?

I just do not see any sort of relevance the writer has with the proposal, particularly when it comes to Out-of-Character on an In-Character resolution. I hold a firm belief that OOC and IC should never under any circumstances be mixed, as this creates a more toxic environment with attacks increasingly drawing the line between OOC and IC and becoming more ambiguous. Not only that, but some people do not wish to hear OOC dramas being hashed out in an IC thread-- I never enjoy it every time and it makes the game feel more negative and less enjoyable.

[WayNeacTia]

Why not?

I just do not see any sort of relevance the writer has with the proposal, particularly when it comes to Out-of-Character on an In-Character resolution. I hold a firm belief that OOC and IC should never under any circumstances be mixed, as this creates a more toxic environment with attacks increasingly drawing the line between OOC and IC and becoming more ambiguous. Not only that, but some people do not wish to hear OOC dramas being hashed out in an IC thread-- I never enjoy it every time and it makes the game feel more negative and less enjoyable.

Welcome to the Security Council. You must be new here?

[Great Algerstonia]

I just do not see any sort of relevance the writer has with the proposal, particularly when it comes to Out-of-Character on an In-Character resolution. I hold a firm belief that OOC and IC should never under any circumstances be mixed, as this creates a more toxic environment with attacks increasingly drawing the line between OOC and IC and becoming more ambiguous. Not only that, but some people do not wish to hear OOC dramas being hashed out in an IC thread-- I never enjoy it every time and it makes the game feel more negative and less enjoyable.

Welcome to the Security Council. You must be new here?

Hi. My name is not "new here". My name is "Great Algerstonia".

[WayNeacTia]

Welcome to the Security Council. You must be new here?

Hi. My name is not "new here". My name is "Great Algerstonia".

Nice to meet you. Now if you think bitching about people voting against due to the author is going to change well...... anything, you must be new around here.

[Apatosaurus]

It's not, but people vote against shit because of the author all the time.

Which is something I unconditionally oppose. The author should absolutely never be a consideration in any WA proposal. Voting for or against on an author-- with exceptions for gameplay rivalries and individual roleplay rivalries-- is not good.

Yeah I definitely agree. Unless the author is blacklisted or otherwise an OOC problem, ADTA arguments are usually stupid.

[WayNeacTia]

Which is something I unconditionally oppose. The author should absolutely never be a consideration in any WA proposal. Voting for or against on an author-- with exceptions for gameplay rivalries and individual roleplay rivalries-- is not good.

Yeah I definitely agree. Unless the author is blacklisted or otherwise an OOC problem, ADTA arguments are usually stupid.

That is the wonderful thing about democracy. People can argue against shit for whatever reason they desire. For instance, I always vote against anything written by fascists or moralists.

[Great Algerstonia]

Hi. My name is not "new here". My name is "Great Algerstonia".

Nice to meet you. Now if you think bitching about people voting against due to the author is going to change well...... anything, you must be new around here.

I believe you can also learn to follow the very same principle.

[WayNeacTia]

Nice to meet you. Now if you think bitching about people voting against due to the author is going to change well...... anything, you must be new around here.

I believe you can also learn to follow the very same principle.

Sure I could, but it wouldn't be anywhere near as fun.

[Great Algerstonia]

I believe you can also learn to follow the very same principle.

Sure I could, but it wouldn't be anywhere near as fun.

Fair, fair.

[Apatosaurus]

For instance, I always vote against anything written by fascists or moralists.

Including moralist raiders? :P

[WayNeacTia]

For instance, I always vote against anything written by fascists or moralists.

Including moralist raiders?

Seeing as how I don’t participate in R/D whatsoever, what difference does it make? A moralist is a moralist.

[CoraSpia]

Including moralist raiders?

Seeing as how I don’t participate in R/D whatsoever, what difference does it make? A moralist is a moralist.

I thought you largely made your decisions on which authors to always vote against in order to make snarky ooc comments?

[Sedgistan]

Now that we've all had our Recommended Daily Dose of Snark, please can the conversation return to the proposal.

[The North Polish Union]

I will try to have the next draft up by the end of this week. It is not my intention to have my perceived OOC views be a distraction to this proposal. I would ask that readers put aside OOC political differences or previous NS Gameplay conflicts (which I also know quite a few exist, although some of those players have retired) when considering this proposal.

[The North Polish Union]

A new draft is up in the OP, primarily based on the feedback from Thousand Branches and Apatosaurus.

ASTOUNDED at the beauty and high degree of lexical development found in the Kowani language, a linguistically sophisticated Romance language unique to the nation;

Admittedly this is worded just a little bit weird. Firstly, you say both “high degree of lexical development” and “linguistically sophisticated” which mean preeeetty much the exact same thing. Also this doesn’t feel like it’s commending Kowani and rather their language? That’s probably totally on opinion but I just think this clause could generally be re-worded. I will leave that up to you as to how though.

My feeling is that since Kowani uses a conlang, the language itself is 'commendable' in a sense. Obviously when a nation's RP language is something like English or Arabic that's not commendable since those languages exist OOC and there's nothing unique about them. Similar for a conlang like Esperanto which also exists OOC and already has a well-developed vocabulary and rules even though it doesn't have native speakers. The Kowani language is unique to the IC nation of Kowani and so I think it makes sense to include the language in a commendation of the whole nation.

I am open to alternatives (from anyone) on "high degree of lexical development/linguistically sophisticated".

ACKNOWLEDGING that Kowani is a significant contributor to those meeting-places where world leaders come together to discuss and debate hypothetical events outside the multiverse, and has been cited as notable for its research- and data-driven contributions to that institution;

Delete the dashes, they don’t need to be there and they look weird as heck. Otherwise looks great!

I have a grammar question about this that somebody can hopefully answer. My knowledge of formal writing in English comes mostly from having attended university in Canada where I studied chemistry, so I could be using grammar that's too technical.

My thinking is that "research and data driven contributions" (no dashes) makes the reader think that there is research and "data driven contributions" which are separate. Since the contributions are driven by data I think there should be a dash there, but "research and data-driven contributions" still makes the reader think that the research and the contributions are separate". I thought the standard for this is the extra dash after research to show that it is also something that drives the contributions, so "research- and data-driven contributions". But there is something that makes me think that what I'm doing is actually what would be done in German, not English.

I've spent way too long trying to think this through lol. If someone could give advice that would be great.

--

The Security Council;

RECOGNIZING Kowani as a nation whose leadership has contributed at a high level to many areas, including both regional and broader international affairs;

GRATEFUL for Kowani’s services to League of Constructed Languages (LoCL) and its successor, Council of Constructed Languages (CoCL) and particularly for aiding alongside several other figures in the relocation from LoCL to CoCL after the former region’s security was compromised in 2019, helping to successfully integrate refugees from the former region, helping to keep the regions activity alive after a disaster;

NOTING that Kowani continues to serve CoCL as a Liberation Minister, and as such is responsible, with the other Liberation Ministers, for much of the administration and protection of the region as well as being the first point of greeting for new nations joining the region;

ASTOUNDED at the beauty and high degree of lexical development found in the Kowani language, a linguistically sophisticated Romance language unique to the nation;

OBSERVING that Kowani has made a great commitment to furthering international diplomacy, doing such things as participating in both the International Socialist Congress and the International Senate; using their World Assembly delegation to give helpful feedback to authors of numerous General Assembly proposals; and particularly, founding the Romance Language Foundation;

ACKNOWLEDGING that Kowani is a significant contributor to those meeting-places where world leaders come together to discuss and debate hypothetical events outside the multiverse, and has been cited as notable for its research- and data-driven contributions in those areas;

APPLAUDING Kowani’s leadership's further efforts to provide high-quality information to such discussions by providing services as a sort of aggregator, which enables leaders of other nations to keep well-informed;

BELIEVING that the nation of Kowani has contributed greatly to international affairs;

THIS BODY does hereby commend Kowani.